Judge orders contractor to repay $300,000 loan to businessman

A con­trac­tor from south Trinidad has been or­dered to im­me­di­ate­ly re­pay a $300,000 loan he took from an­oth­er busi­ness­man, five years ago.

 

On April 16, High Court judge Ava­son Quin­lan-Williams or­dered Dale Khan to re­pay the mon­ey to Ain­dra­narth Dhan­ram, af­ter up­hold­ing his (Dhan­ram) law­suit over the is­sue.

How­ev­er, Khan ap­pealed and asked for a stay of the judge­ment.

When the stay ap­pli­ca­tion came up for hear­ing be­fore Ap­pel­late Judge Nolan Bereaux at the Hall of Jus­tice in Port-of-Spain, last Thurs­day, it was re­ject­ed. Bereaux ruled that Quin­lan-Williams’ as­sess­ment of the case was im­pec­ca­ble and stat­ed that Khan did not have a re­al prospect of suc­cess on ap­peal.

In the event that Khan does not re­pay Dhan­ram with­in a rea­son­able time, he (Dhan­ram) may take levy ac­tion to have Khan’s as­sets seized and auc­tioned to clear the debt.

Ac­cord­ing to the ev­i­dence in the case, the busi­ness­men be­came ac­quaint­ed in 2010. Dhan­ram claimed that over the next four years, he let Khan $150,000, which he re­paid and of­fered him a cred­it fa­cil­i­ty at his store. In 2014, Khan al­leged­ly bor­rowed $310,000 with a promise to re­pay the mon­ey with­in a year at a rate of 10 per cent in­ter­est.

Khan did not re­pay the mon­ey with­in the pe­ri­od and re­quest­ed a year ex­ten­sion. Khan was grant­ed the ex­ten­sion but again did not ho­n­our the debt. Dhan­ram then filed the law­suit seek­ing to re­coup $372,000 which rep­re­sent­ed the prin­ci­pal plus two years’ in­ter­est.

In his de­fence, Khan claimed that it was, in fact, him who was loan­ing Dhan­ram mon­ey. Khan claimed that around the same time, he gave Dhan­ram six cash pay­ments, to­tal­ly $152,000. He claimed that when Dhan­ram gave him the check for $310,000 it was re­pay­ment for the loans. He re­turned $150,000 and took $8,000 in goods on cred­it.

In her eight-page judge­ment, Quin­lan-Williams re­ject­ed Khan’s claims, which she de­scribed as il­log­i­cal and math­e­mat­i­cal­ly in­com­pre­hen­si­ble.

“The de­fen­dant’s ac­count sound­ed fool­ish. This was a rouse to ex­plain why he wrote a cheque to the claimant in Ju­ly, for $150,000,” Quin­lan-Williams said.

As she analysed Khan’s fi­nan­cial records, she ruled that the pay­ment Khan made to Dhan­ram was over the first loan.

“The en­tire co­nun­drum cre­at­ed by the de­fen­dant’s cir­cuitous tale was re­solved by an ap­pli­ca­tion of com­mon sense and log­ic to the ev­i­dence,” she said.

In ad­di­tion to or­der­ing Khan to re­pay the mon­ey, Quin­lan-Williams al­so or­dered that he pay the $60,000 Dhan­ram ex­pend­ed in bring­ing the law­suit.

Dhan­ram was rep­re­sent­ed by Anand Ram­lo­gan, SC, Alvin Pariags­ingh, Vishaal Siewsaran and Chelsea Stew­art. Khan was rep­re­sent­ed by Mustapha Khan and Kristin Khan.

Reporter: Derek Achong

Tags: 
Category: 
Favourite count: 
1
Favourite count ids: 
,87378